Michael wrote: > On Monday, 8 July 2024 00:57:40 BST Dale wrote: >> Frank Steinmetzger wrote: >>> Am Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 05:10:18PM -0500 schrieb Dale: >>>>>>>> It's hi res and a good deal. :-D >>>>>>> Please define hi res. Full HD at 32″ is definitely not hi res. ;-P >>>>>>> It’s about as much as CRTs back in the day, close to 1024×768 at 17″. >>>>>> Well, I still consider 1080P hi res. That's what I get for any monitor >>>>>> or TV I buy. The biggest thing I have is a 32" tho. My rooms are >>>>>> kinda >>>>>> small. No need for a 60" TV/monitor. >>>>> Well my TV sits over 4 m (that’s 13 feet for the imperialists) away from >>>>> the sofa. So I splurged and got myself a 65″ one. >>>> Well, I saw on a website once where it gave info on distance, monitor >>>> size and what you are watching can factor in too. It claimed that a 32" >>>> is the ideal size for my room. Given my old eyes tho, a 42" might serve >>>> me better. Thing is, I'm bad to watch old videos from the 80's, 70's >>>> and even 60's. Most of those are 480P or if lucky, just a little higher >>>> resolution. With those, monitor size can make videos worse. >>> This websites’s goal probably was about covering your eyes’ natural field >>> of view. Sitting at my desk, my 27 inch monitor appears only slight >>> smaller than my 65 inch TV 4 m away. Watching 50s TV shows will be the >>> same experience on both in those situations. >>> >>> If you want to fill that entire field of view with details, then >>> naturally, >>> a 50s TV show in 480p won’t suffice. The more of your viewing arc you want >>> to cover, the more picture resolution you need. You basically want to map >>> X amount of pixels on each degree of viewing arc. Physical units are >>> great. >>> >>> It also goes into the other direction: people these days™ watch 4K movies >>> on their phones. Why, just why? Even if the screen can display it >>> physically, their eyes cannot resolve that fine detail, because the >>> pixels are too small. >>> >>> -- Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’ Please do not share anything >>> from, with or about me on any social network. How do you recognise a >>> male hedgehog? It has one more spine. >> Yea. The website at the time was mostly likely to help people not buy a >> TV that is waaaay to large. >> >> I made a DVD of the TV series Combat for my neighbor. That was when he >> had a little smaller TV. It said it looked like large blocks on the >> screen. He watched it tho. lol He sits about 10 feet from the TV. It >> is a nice TV tho. All that smart stuff. >> >> I agree, a device should pick a resolution that it can easily display >> without downloading more than it needs. There's really not much need >> putting a 4K or even a 1080P video on a small cell phone. Unless a >> person is using a magnifying glass, they won't see the difference. I >> remember some of my old CRTs that ran at 720P. For their small size, >> that was plenty. > Devices send a viewport size to the server to fetch scaled images and fonts > as > required, instead of downloading a huge resolution only for it to be consumed > on the small screen of a phone or tablet. I'm not sure how the screen size > information is shared between server-phone-TV when you mirror your phone on a > TV.
I was watching a video once on youtube. I don't remember how but somehow I found out what info is sent to youtube about what I'm watching with. It sent that I was using Linux, version of Firefox, and other info but also included the resolution of my monitor. Generally when I watch a video on youtube, the highest it goes is 1080P. After all, that is the max I can display anyway. It usually gives options for lower resolution too. I've read that a person can limit the amount of info that is being sent. In a way, I don't like it sharing much info but on the other hand, it does make it easier for them to provide what I need. I don't know about cell phones but if using the youtube app, I'd think it would know what you are using and the resolution too. To me, it looks like it would be best for everyone to only download what is needed and no more. It saves bandwidth of the server, bandwidth for the user as well. Most people have unlimited nowadays but still, one would think a company like youtube would see the benefit of only sending enough resolution to get the job done. If they do that for millions of users, it would have to save them some amount of money. I'd think anyway. It looks like my monitor stand won't be here today. It left New Jersey but has not even made it to Memphis yet. It goes from Memphis to the State hub and then to my local post office. It might be here tomorrow. If the State hub is slow like it usually is, could be Wednesday. The new monitor left Memphis last night. I see no reason it won't be here today, around lunch I'd think. It is Monday so could be a little later. It's coming through FedEx tho. I also ordered a new hard drive. I'm going to swap a 18TB for a 8TB on one of my PVs. Then I'm going to use the 8TB drive to put /home on and put in the new rig. Then when I get everything set up and do the switch, all I have to do is move the sets of data drives over. There's six of them. Three in each PV. Dang I got a lot of data here. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
